United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
L. Miller, Jr. Judge
Shoemaker sued Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Elkhart County
Sheriff Brad Rogers and Commander John Perry alleging that
they were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition
and denied him medical care in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses, the
Rehabilitation and Americans with Disabilities Acts, 29
U.S.C. § 794(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and the
Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1395dd(d)(2)(A). After Mr. Shoemaker voluntarily
dismissed two of the three claims asserted against Correct
Care Solutions, Correct Care filed a Rule 12(c) motion to
dismiss the remaining § 1983 claim. Mr. Shoemaker
hasn't responded to that motion. Consistent with the
court's March 19, 2019 opinion and order, the court
denies Correct Care's motion.
Civ. P. 12(c) provides that: “[a]fter the pleadings are
closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any
party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” “A
Rule 12(c) motion is designed to provide a means of disposing
of cases when the material facts are not in dispute between
the parties and a judgment on the merits can be achieved by
focusing on the content of the competing pleadings [the
complaint, the answers, and any exhibits thereto or matters
incorporated by reference therein], and any facts of which
the  court will take judicial notice.” 5C Fed. Prac.
& Proc. Civ. § 1367 (3d ed.); see also Northern
Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of South
Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452-53 (7th Cir.1998); Friedman
v. Washburn Co., 145 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1944), and is
governed by the same standard as motions to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6). Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada,
N.A., 507 F.3d 614, 619 (7th Cir. 2007); Alexander
v. City of Chicago, 994 F.2d 333, 336 (7th Cir. 1993).
The court must accept the factual allegations of the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the plaintiff, without engaging in fact-finding. Reger
Dev., LLC v. National City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th
Cir. 2010); Stakowski v. Town of Cicero, 425 F.3d
1075, 1078 (7th Cir. 2005).
facts are taken from Mr. Shoemaker's complaint and
accepted as true for purposes of the defendants' motion.
Shoemaker suffers from severe mental impairments: bipolar
disorder and depression, with suicidal ideations that
“substantially limit” the operation of his
neurological and brain functions and major life activities,
including the ability to think and care for himself. When he
was arrested on December 21, 2015 and detained at the Elkhart
County Correctional Complex, Mr. Shoemaker notified the
defendants of his medical conditions, the antipsychotic
medications he was taking, and the doctors who had prescribed
the medication. At some undisclosed point during his
incarceration, Mr. Shoemaker also told a Correct Care nurse
that he “could become suicidal if he was not provided
his antipsychotic medication.” (Cmplt. ¶¶ 3,
7-9, and 11). The defendants didn't give Mr. Shoemaker
the antipsychotic medication that his doctors had prescribed
for several weeks. As a result, his mental condition
deteriorated and he became “actively suicidal”;
and, on January 22, 2016, he ‘d[ove] headfirst to the
ground from the second story of his cell block ...
fractur[ing] [his] skull, ribs, collar bone, and arm and
punctur[ing] his lung causing its collapse.” (Cmplt.
¶¶ 10, 12-15).
Shoemaker alleges that Correct Care violated his rights under
the Fourteenth Amendment and is liable for his injuries
• contracted with the Elkhart County Sheriff to
“provide services to detainees in the Elkhart County
• has a “policy, practice, custom, or procedure in
place at the jail of not promptly providing psychiatric
medication to detainees, discriminating against individuals
on the basis of their disabilities, and denying services to
those with serious medical needs”;
• knew the serious risk of harm [it] placed Mr.
Shoemaker in by [denying him his antipsychotic medication for
several weeks]”; and
• was deliberately indifferent and “intentionally,
willfully, wantonly, and maliciously” harmed him.
(Complaint ¶¶ 6, 12, 17-19).
prevail on its Rule 12(c) motion, Correct Care must establish
that no material issues of fact exist and that it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. “If the facts are
uncontested (or the defendants accept plaintiff's
allegations for the sake of argument), it may be possible to
decide [the merits of a case] under Rule 12(c);” but
“a complaint that invokes a recognized legal theory ...
and contains plausible allegations on the material issues ...
cannot be dismissed under Rule 12.” Richards v.
Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 638 (7th Cir. 2012).
Care contends that plaintiff's bare allegation that a
Correct Care policy, practice, or procedure violated his
constitutional rights is insufficient to adequately plead a
Monell claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th
Cir. 2011); Strauss v. City of Chicago, 760 F.2d
765, 767 (7th Cir. 1985). But the complaint asserts more than
a bare legal conclusion. Mr. Shoemaker alleges liability
based on Correct Care's custom, policy, or practice of
failing to promptly provide psychiatric medication and other
medical services to detainees generally, and to him
specifically, “despite knowing the serious risk of harm
[it] placed Mr. Shoemaker in.” Mr. Shoemaker
doesn't seek to hold Correct Care vicariously liable for
the acts of other defendants.
allegations are disputed, and dismissal under Rule 12(c)
“is appropriate only if ‘it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff cannot prove any facts that would support
his claim for relief.'” Forseth v. Village of
Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting
Thomason v. Nachtrieb, 888 F.2d 1202, 1204 (7th Cir.
1989)). Assuming the allegations are true, as the court must
for purposes of defendant's motion, they state a
possible, legally viable claim against Correct Care Solutions
under § 1983. See Yassan v. J.P. Morgan Chase and
Co., 708 F.3d 963, 975-976 (7th Cir. 2013) (discussing
difference between Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c)); Rodriguez
v. Plymouth ...